Why Should She?

Barbara Walters scolds Elisabeth Hassleback for "never conceding a point" after she alone among the hosts defended Sarah Palin when the others said she wasn't "smart enough" to be vice president. Why should she when she's right? Barbara thinks she should concede that someone else just has a different opinion. That sounds like subjectivist thinking, to me. When she's right, why SHOULD she "concede a point?" (News Busters)

"Democrats Steal GOP Principles"

They're always crowing about how "Clintonomics saved America" when it was actually REAGANOMICS that did it, and Clinton's administration was the beneficiary, try though he might to do otherwise, though "scotched" by a "feisty" GOP minority (at the time). The good economy enjoyed during the Clinton administration was a "holdover" from the tax cuts by Ronald Reagan, and they "scream to high heavens" if you try and tell them that. But they can't cite FACTS to prove it. We CAN cite facts to prove our thesis. the first thing he did as president was to pass the (then) highest tax increase in history while telling America he had "worked harder than ever" to find ways to lower taxes, but couldn't. Then he tried to take over one-seventh of the economy (the health care system) and failed. Since then, he and Hillary have been trying to get it enacted piecemeal. (Human Events/Allan Ryskind)

Obama's Censorship Attempt

When David Freddosso, author of "The Case Against Barack Obama," a well-researched book that, if enough people read it will SINK the Obama campaign was engaging in a tapred debate on a popular Chicago radio show, "Extension 720," Obama sent out a mass e-mail to supporters telling them to call in and demand the show be canceled because Freddosso "has made a career out of dishonest (sic), hate-mongering (sic), even calling legislation to protect people from hate crimes 'thought police.' " That last might be true, but not under Obama's wording. "Thought police" legislation just adds one more layer of "enforcement" to crimes that already have a punishment, and represents "double punishment" for what a person is THINKING. So ANY right-thinking person would be against it. In any case, they wanted the show summarily canceled (pure censorship of ideas he doesn't agree with), not knowing it was on tape. Obama particularly disliked the sentence telling people he wanted to "raise taxes on the rich," the "rich" being described as anyone making more than $32,500 a year. Obama is well known to wish to "tax the rich," but over $32,000 a year? I used to make more than $40,000 a year, and I wasn't anything LIKE rich--and that was in a time when $40,000 a year was real money. Rich? Not on your life! Obama is a socialist and a "rich-hater," even though he, himself, is rich. He just hates those who make THEMSELVES rich through hard work and good ideas. Not the "coupon-clippers" like Teddy Kennedy and his ilk. Do you want that kind of man in the White House where he has REAL power? (Timothy Carney/Human Events)

Everything is "Racist"

Obama thinks he can dictate what people say, or even what they make fun of in this election. He has a long list of things we mustn't discuss, and another of words we can't use regarding him OR his running mate. Mallard, as usual, makes a joke of it, but there is always more than a "kernel" of truth in a joke--and in this case it's more than a "kernel." (Mallard Fillmore)

Macaca Means "Nigger"

That's what the Washington Post is trying very hard to accomplish. They beat one (Republican) politician because he uttered this word in public, even though he probably didn't even think about it meaning the word the liberals fear to say. I didn't even know until the Democrats told me, and I'll bet most black people didn't, either. Now they're trying hard to redefine the word so that ANYBODY who utters it can be accused of being a racist, as they did that (Republican) politician. Typical liberal baloney. Now anybody who wants to give me grief because I actually USED the word, "bring it on." I don't subscribe to "political correctness." When there is a REASON to actually USE a word instead of a substitute "weasel word," I'm not afraid to do so. (News Busters)

More Obama Censorship

Obama is against self-defense. He thinks we should just let illegally armed criminals kill us and hurt us without fighting back. And to that end, he wants NRA ads to be BANNED because he's afraid such ads will "influence" too many people away from his election as president. "Earlier this week, the National Rifle Association's Political Victory Fund released a series of radio and television spots to educate gun owners and sportsmen about Barack Obama's longstanding anti-gun record. In response to the NRA-PVF ads, a clearly panicked Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) are doing everything they can to hide Obama's real record by mounting a coordinated assault on the First Amendment. They have gone to desperate and outrageous lengths to try to silence your NRA by bullying media outlets with threats of lawsuits if they run NRA-PVF's ads. The Obama camp is particularly angry with an NRA ad entitled "Hunter" which lays out Obama's record on gun control." Obama actually thinks there are GROUNDS to sue these people for running NRA ads--or he knows there are NO grounds and means to bankrupt the stations. That's the kind of president he will be if elected. If you write or say ANYTHING against him, he will threaten you with expensive lawsuits he KNOWS he can't win, but which will cost you a LOT of money to fight. That's the "modus operandi" of Democrats. Sue their opponents, knowing they will have to pay their own legal costs. They've been doing it to gun makers for years, and several are now out of business because of it. What we need in this country is a law forcing people like him to pay the legal costs of people they sue and lose. That'll put an end to this scam. (News Max)

Harry Reid is Mentally Ill!

He says they "had an agreement in principle" until John McCain came in at the last minute and "screwed it up." One (Democrat) Senator even went so far as to say the president should tell McCain to "get out of town." What actually happened is that they tried to put Obama in charge early on, and HE "screwed it up." He even ADMITTED it later when he said, "I'm better at dealing with people over the phone" (which makes me wonder what's going to happen when "President" Obama has to face his first real life challenge that doesn't come over the phone). This makes me wonder what meeting Reid was attending. It certainly wasn't the one in which both presidential candidates spoke. Reid and the Democrats are seizing on this opportunity to "put McCain away" in the presidential race. But it won't work. There are too many honest people who were in that room who know what REALLY went on. If, and when they DO come up with an agreement and implement it, we'll just have to see if it works--and who is REALLY responsible. We KNOW who is responsible for the economic upheaval. Reid and his Democrat cohorts. And now THEY are "in charge" of "fixing" it. Reid said that they only had to do the paperwork and have a vote, and McCain "screwed it up" with a few words. If they were actually all that close, how could ANYBODY "screw it up" with a few words? I think Reid is just trying his best to "sink" McCain with words. (Michelle Malkin)

"Macaca" Means "Nigger"

That's what the Washington Post is trying very hard to accomplish. They beat one (Republican) politician because he uttered this word in public, even though he probably didn't even think about it meaning the word the liberals fear to say. I didn't even know until the Democrats told me, and I'll bet most black people didn't, either. Now they're trying hard to redefine the word so that ANYBODY who utters it can be accused of being a racist, as they did that (Republican) politician. Typical liberal baloney. Now anybody who wants to give me grief because I actually USED the word, "bring it on." I don't subscribe to "political correctness." When there is a REASON to actually USE a word instead of a substitute "weasel word," I'm not afraid to do so. (News Busters)

What is Nancy Smoking?

Nancy Pelosi, House Majority Leader, says "we're back on track" with the bailout plan. As if they were ever ON track. If they pass anything in the next few days it will be bogus, and will not work. Why? Because she's "part of the problem," having been "right in the crowd" when Democrats passed the "Community Reinvestment Act of 1977" (the one that FORCED lenders to make loans they KNEW could not be repaid--a "recipe for disaster if I ever saw one) during the Clinton administration. And now, when their "chickens have come home to roost, SHE and the others who were instrumental in CREATING the problem are "back on track" with a plan to SOLVE the problem they CREATED? Sheesh! Gimme a break! When are going to get rid of these con men/women in the Democrat Party? How do they keep getting away with ripping us off and keep getting re-elected? Mostly because most of the people who vote for them "don't pay attention to politics" and thus are easily scammed. (Reuters)

Eleven Kids Abandoned in Nebraska

Some of the older ones because their parents were not able to control them. And why is that? Because the "child protectors" and their propaganda have convinced people's children that all they have to do if they're "dissatisfied" in any way with their treatment at the hands of their parents, is to call CPS and they'll "take care of it." Some kids have "made the call" simply because their parents would not let them go to the movies or have confined them to their rooms with all their toys because they had violated the rules. And CPS routinely sides with the kids, "chiding" parents about "being too restrictive." Soon those kids "get the message" that their parents no longer have any authority over them and, when they predictably get in trouble, they (CPS) want to blame the parents. Pretty soon those kids are no longer able to be "handled." I don't blame some of those parents for "abandoning" those kids in a safe manner. Things can get pretty nasty if kids REFUSE to be "controlled. If my children were in that age bracket and continually defied my authority, making them impossible to handle, I would tell them if they kept it up I'd turn them over to the "child protectors" and they wouldn't like that, not a bit. I would hope that would "cure" the problem and make them more amenable to the rules. If they kept it up, soon they'd be "in the system," being passed around from foster home to foster home, even being abused and sexually abused, sometimes by the foster parents, and other times by fellow foster children. I would hope they didn't push me that far. They don't know just how hard it would be to get themselves back home. Maybe not possible at all, because once the "child protectors" get their hands on them, they're like leeches, and just won't let go unless forced. And when they become adults, the "child protectors" will just abandon them without even giving them a change of clothes and a little money, the way the prison system DOES for criminals when they let them out of THEIR "system." (Yahoo News)

"Green" Extremists Trying to Hijack Bailout

They're saying that ANY "bailout should have "green" tie-ins. In other words, even if such tie-ins destroy what is trying to be done, they want them anyway. That's what columnist Thomas Freidman (not to be confused with economist Milton Freidman) thinks. They want the power to implement "green" requirements. Talk about taking advantage of others' problems! These environmental crazies just can't wait to take advantage of the "financial market's problems." That's their "modus operandi." Stick their oar in ANY major problem and try to make "green concessions" a REQUIRED part of ANY bailout. (News Busters)

Obama's Censorship Attempt

When David Freddosso, author of "The Case Against Barack Obama," a well-researched book that, if enough people read it will SINK the Obama campaign was engaging in a taped debate on a popular Chicago radio show, "Extension 720," Obama sent out a mass e-mail to supporters telling them to call in and demand the show be canceled because Freddosso "has made a career out of dishonest (sic), hate-mongering (sic), even calling legislation to protect people from hate crimes 'thought police.' " That last might be true, but not under Obama's wording. "Thought police" legislation just adds one more layer of "enforcement" to crimes that already have a punishment, and represents "double punishment" for what a person is THINKING. Since when do we lhave laws against THINKING? So ANY right-thinking person would be against it. In any case, they wanted the show summarily canceled (pure censorship of ideas he doesn't agree with), not knowing it was on tape. Obama particularly disliked the sentence telling people he wanted to "raise taxes on the rich," the "rich" being described as anyone making more than $32,500 a year. Obama is well known to wish to "tax the rich," but over $32,000 a year (he actually voted FOR a bill that did just that)? I used to make more than $40,000 a year, and I wasn't anything LIKE rich--and that was in a time when $40,000 a year was real money. Rich? Not on your life! Obama is a socialist and a "rich-hater," even though he, himself, is rich. He just hates those who make THEMSELVES rich through hard work and good ideas. Not the "coupon-clippers" like Teddy Kennedy and his ilk who INHERITED all their money and haven't needed to do a day's work their whole life). Do you want that kind of man in the White House where has REAL power? (Timothy Carney/Human Events)

A Good Reason

Alcee Hastings is a good reason why those who have been impeached from one government job should be forever banned from ANY government job, especially one to which they must be elected. Hastings was impeached as a federal judge, then he ran for Congress, and won. This man, who was impeached for corruption, is now helping to make our laws. His most recent gaffe is his statement, made before a group of Jews and Blacks, was this: ““Anybody toting guns and stripping moose don’t (sic) care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks. So, you just think this through,”” Aside from the lack of knowledge of the use of language, what the hell does THAT have to do with anything? Why anybody would even LISTEN to such a man is beyond me. Maybe it’s because this group is mostly Democrat. But, being a Democrat, he’ll just keep on making such ignorant remarks as Barney Frank and Chris Dodd (creators of the “financial mess”) do. (Hot Air)

They "Want In"

Both Obama and McCain "want in" on what is going to happen in the "economic disaster" we're in now. There is going to be a new bureaucracy created to "deal with" this situation and they want their names to be connected to it. Of course, if it fails, they'll be at the front of the line of those running in the other direction. Nut they want in, now. Because that's more "free face time" on television. McCain says he is "suspending his campaign" to go to Washington and help, while Obama just spouts his opinion on what should be done (most of which is more government and higher taxes). All of it is socialism. (Yahoo News)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080925/ap_on_el_pr/mccain

Panic and Fear on Capitol Hill

But not for the reasons talked about in this “Evans-Novak Report.” They’re frightened that it will be found out that they actually CAUSED the crisis they SAY they’re trying to “solve.” It was the Democrat-controlled Congress that passed the law that FORCED financial institutions to make “risky loans” that could NOT be paid back, or suffer “investigation” by the Janet Reno Justice Department for “redlining.” Funny: seems like most people who can’t repay loans live in the same places, which makes it hard to defend against the “redlining” charge. But Democrats definitely have the gall to push it. (Evans-Novak Report)

Krugman Tried to Lie

But he was foiled by facts. He said Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac "weren't involved" in the "subprime loan" fiasco because they weren't allowed to buy loans without adequate down payments and proof of ability to pay the loan back. He described it as "reasons why regulation works." Unfortunately, that's not true. Fannie and Freddie were involved in $434 BILLION dollars' worth of such loans in just two years between 2004 and 2006. Their failure is proof that "regulation (such as that provided by liberal Democrats who just wanted "poor people" to own their own homes to buy votes) does NOT work. They try to complicate it (FHA, Freddie Mac, Fannie May, and other unintelligible acronyms) so you can't understand it, but it's as simple as that. (Café Hayek)

Lies and Misinformation

I'm really getting tired of the lies and misinformation being put out as truth by not only the media, but also by business in advertising. One such place is the emphasis on "self-esteem" in the media AND in various ads. Self-esteem is simply your opinion of yourself based on LACK of knowledge of your talents and abilities. They willfully HIDE such information(if it's negative) from you so you will "think of yourself as a beautiful person." Self IMAGE, however, is your view of yourself because of KNOWLEDGE of your own talents and abilities. Another area is oil. Even President Bush has been heard to talk about "our oil addiction." That's false! We are NOT "addicted" to oil, nor are we "addicted" to air, water, and fire. These are NECESSITIES of life! Without them, life, as we know it, would END. That is NOT an "addiction." Another is a political ad that says a certain candidate "has been named the most corrupt." By whom? Her opponent or his friends, of course. So listen to those who push such ideas with skepticism. (Just common sense)

Linsay Graham (As Expected) Spouts Liberal Line

Apparently, he has "bought" the Democrat (liberal) lie that "we can't drill our way out" of the "oil crisis. He said, "The worst thing we can do as a nation is taking the easy way out. If you start opening up offshore drilling, then you are buying time and you are not addressing the fundamental problem with fossil fuels." But we CAN "drill our way out of it!" Banning drilling is how the Democrats got us into this mess in the first place, and drilling WILL "get us out of it." Drilling is NOT "the easy way out," it is the ONLY way out, if Democrats (liberals) would just let us do it. That, and "easing" the restrictions on building oil refineries in this country. (Just common sense)

We're NOT Safer?

That's what liberals say, constantly. But they can't explain the complete ABSENCE of a "meaningful" attack upon us since 9/11. What has happened is that we're now alerted. Even if our southern border is very porous, all America is "on the alert" for anything that might herald an attempted attack. Yes, some people simply "go after" Muslims, and that's going to happen because they are so identifiable and some people are simply dumb. I know some Muslims who are "good people," but when they can be seen off to the side, their rear ends in the air, "praying to the East," they're easy to identify. Their women wear at the very least a headscarf, and follow their men closely, from behind, with their heads down, never speaking unless spoken to. Most people (myself included) will not harm them just because they're Muslim. But they watch them closely and report ANY strange things they do that could help Islamic terrorists make an attack, such as taking pilot training with no interest in takeoffs or landings, just in how to "fly." We've foiled more than a few possible attacks because there are so many eyes on ALL Muslims. Roosevelt carried it a lot further when he imprisoned even American-born Japanese during WWII. That was a little overdone (Okay, a LOT overdone), but "eyes on Muslims" help stop further attacks. That's not "racism," it's simple common sense. (Just common sense)

Partisan "Bickering"

Politicians everywhere decry "partisan bickering." But isn't that why we have more than one party? Should we have only ONE party and so "end" the "partisan bickering?" Sounds a lot like a dictatorship to me. It amazes me that politicians are able to convince so many people that "partisan bickering" is a bad thing in politics. I think it is a "good thing," and often keeps some politicians (liberals, mostly) from enacting things that are patently bad for us. I say "Hooray for partisan bickering" between politicians!" In fact, I am FOR a Congress that is a "do nothing" Congress because then no new taxes get passed, no new "pork barrel" measures get passed, and they (somehow) spend less of OUR money. The big difference between a politician and a "drunken sailor" is that the drunken sailor is spending HIS own money. (Just common sense)

President vs. Congress

Why do people constantly blame the president (whoever he/she might be) for everything that happens? why is Bush being blamed for the "economic downturn" just because he's in office? Why do people ignore the fact that the Democrats (socialists) are "in control" in Congress (and have been for almost two years at this writing), where such things get done? Yes, the president has to "approve" their efforts. But there are many reasons why the president might find it necessary to sign such bills into law after they're presented to him whether or not he likes it. But Congress has PRIMARY responsibility for such things. Frankly, the possibility of Democrats (socialists) gaining control of the EXECUTIVE while increasing their control in Congress scares the hell out of me and makes me glad I'm an old man and won't have to live through much of what they create in the future. Unfortunately, my children and grandchildren WILL. (Just common sense)

A "Little-Known Truth"

I don’t always agree with Wiley (Non Sequitur), but sometimes he hits it so much “on the head” I wonder how he could possibly believe in some of the things in which he believes. One of his most famous ideas is “Obviousman,” whom I first noticed when he was straightening out an old man with a beard carrying a sign saying “There are no absolutes,” which caused his (the old man) head to explode when he explained the obvious contradiction. He didn’t know the words on his own sign were a “statement of an absolute,” which not only discredited his words, but also his very philosophy. In this one, he spoofs the idea of the “forbidden fruit,” logically. Unfortunately, many liberals deny the existence of logic. (Non Sequitur)

So What?

So what If Sarah Palin fired a member of her cabinet for being insubordinate? She has that right! She is the GOVERNOR! They serve "at her pleasure!" Maybe it WAS over his refusing to fire her former brother-in-law "for cause" or because he wouldn't follow her orders on his budget? From what I've seen, it's a wonder this guy (the cop) lasted as long as he did! What's the big deal? Frankly, if I were a state trooper, I certainly wouldn't want to anger the governor, whatever state I was in and ESPECIALLY if I was related to her. You just don't DO that. Not if you want to keep your job. If you're the slightest bit intelligent, you don't threaten to make the governor's father "eat a bullet" and not expect to get fired (or even go to jail). (Weekly Standard)

Obama Racism

The liberal media is on a "tear" to convince people who care about what liberals think about them that a vote for McCain is RACISM. That's a LOAD! Maybe there is a SMALL number of people in this country who would not vote for Obama because he's half black ("one drop of black blood, ya know"), but I seriously doubt it is a large enough group to make a difference. I judge everybody as an INDIVIDUAL and I find Obama (as an individual) to be a SOCIALIST, and I wouldn't vote for him on a bet! I don't care if he's purple with pink polka-dots! I STILL won't vote for him. If that makes me a racist, so be it. At one time there might have been a problem with racism for a black candidate, but no more. Count the number of black council members, mayors (even in the South), senators and representatives, on a city, state-wide, or national level for proof. You might also notice that about the same number of whites and blacks in politics get in trouble for taking advantage of their offices. (Yahoo News)

A Promise is A Promise

Unless you're a politician trying to get elected, apparently. This story is about Rick Heller, who promised FAITHFULLY to "limit himself to eight years in office." But when the eight years was up, he kept running, saying he "didn't realize how important seniority was." Apparently, now he does. But it seems to me if you promise to quit after eight years, you should DO it, or you are a liar. This story is all too often repeated. There are many politicians who promise to "term limit" themselves, but when it comes right down to it, they "like the power" too much to quit. For my part, I would NEVER vote a politician who is exceeding his promised time in office back into his office--and neither should anybody else. This guy should be defeated in the next election. (Common Sense)

Dems Blocked Mortgage Cleanup

Five years ago, the Bush administration tried to improve the regulation of two Democrat supporters (They gave MILLIONS to Democrats and a "little trickle" to Republicans. But the Democrats immediately objected. Rep. Barney Frank (ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee), whose boyfriend started a brothel in his apartment said, ”These two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis." Democrat Melvin Watt said, "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing. I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing.” They probably wish they had not said those things now, and hope we will forget it. "The untold story in this whole national crisis is that President Clinton put on steroids the Community Redevelopment Act, a well-intended [They always mean well. -RT] Carter-era law designed to encourage minority homeownership. And in so doing, he helped create the market for the risky subprime loans that he and Democrats now decry as not only greedy but 'predatory.' It was the Bush administration that wanted to rein in the madness in the credit markets, and the Democrats who wanted to extend the Clinton policies that created the crisis we have now. After the fit hit the shan, as Michelle {Malkin] says, these same Democrats want to shift blame back to the administration that wanted to increase oversight and curtail risk in lending practices while reducing patronage at the giant GSEs." So now it's Bush's fault because "he didn't get his plan through." John Lott (Author of "More Guns, Less Crime")predicted this "crisis" six months before it happened. But was anybody listening? (Hot Air/Ed Morrissey)

Rush Fights Back at Obama Lies

Obama ran an ad in Spanish (hoping only the Spanish-language people would see it, I suppose, and English-speaking people wouldn’t know what was going on) using verbiage Rush used years ago to pillory the Mexican government’s own “illegal alien” laws). That’s what Rush does. So the Obama folks “turned it around” and said Rush was saying,”shut up and go home” to Mexican illegal immigrants, when in fact, it was the Mexican government saying that to THEIR illegal immigrants. I can’t say this is typical of the Obama camp, but I’m not surprised. (News Max)

Liberals Hate Mallard

As they hate ANYTHING that sees them for what they are and isn't afraid to use their own stupidity to show everybody. They hate Rush Limbaugh for the same reason. He uses their own words to pillory them, as Mallard does in this September 18 strip, showing how most people vote in this country. That MIGHT even work in our favor this time, as the Republican vice president candidate is, according to one liberal pundit, "hot." Liberals say the Mallard strip is NOT funny. Which tells me a lot about their intelligence and their ability to laugh. The elite liberal CAN'T laugh. He has NO sense of humor. Especially for a comic strip that consistently "gores his ox." (Mallard Fillmore)

Why Did The Teleprompters Fail?

The teleprompters failed several times at the Republican convention. Most notably during Sarah Palin's speech. Did anyone notice? No, she just kept right on speaking, "from the cuff" with one of the best-known remarks, the one about the difference between a woman and a pit bull being lipstick, was NOT on the script. Could this be because those with the responsibility to keep them “up and running” are union members? Remember, union members (not necessarily all of them) promote the Democrats over everybody else. It’s very suspicious when teleprompters fail so often in one event (Former Mayor Rudy Juliani and Sarah Palin at this one convention). It would be very easy for the people responsible for keeping them working to “forget” to do “one small thing” so they’d fail. (Just common sense)

Are Guns A "Good thing?"

They are if they're in the hands of honest people. You can't stop criminals from getting guns, so why make it easier for them to terrorize honest people by keeping those "honest people" from having the means to self-defense? John Lott, author of "More Guns, Less Crime" notes: " . . where guns are banned, crime increases." The USA is often criticized for having widespread gun ownership, but Lott states that "the states with the highest gun ownership rates have by far the lowest violent crime rates. And similarly, over time, states with the largest increases in gun ownership have experienced the biggest drops in violent crime." This is unarguable. But the gun-control freaks continue to "make noise" about "dangerous guns." Guns are NOT "dangerous." CRIMINALS with guns ARE "dangerous" and they'd be less so if honest people were allowed the right to own guns, as "guaranteed" by the U. S. Constitution. The bureaucrats and politicians get around this and get away with effective gun bans by saying, "Sure, the Constitution allows Americans to own guns. But that doesn't stop the need for reasonable restrictions." What is a "reasonable restriction?" That is subjective and is usually "defined" by those politicians and bureaucrats to suit themselves. And by the time honest people can successfully contest it, criminals have already killed them with their ILLEGAL guns, which HAVE no such "restrictions." One of the stupidest "reasonable restrictions" is the trigger lock. There's no point in having a gun around for self-defense if you have to fumble with a gun lock while the criminal is already armed with a gun unfettered by such a silly thing as a trigger lock. Sometimes I think the "anti-gun freaks" want to kill everybody who wants to own a gun for self-defense. I think every person who wants a gun should be allowed unfettered access to them; even criminals. They're going to get them anyway, so why shouldn't their intended VICTIMS be able to defend themselves? (The Progress Report)

Obama "Disagrees"

He says he "disagrees" with most of Justice Thomas' decisions and his defining of the Constitution. In what way? I wish Obama would be a little more specific, if he can. I don't think he can. He's no more qualified to criticize the decisions of Justice Thomas than he is to be president. "Speaking of 'setting aside,' let’s set aside a few things about Obama-as-critic of Clarence Thomas: that Obama has never published a scholarly article, even though head of the Harvard Law Review nearly twenty years ago; that he is barely a lawyer, having a degree but hardly ever practiced law (let alone constitutional or appellate law); that his vaunted teaching at the University of Chicago was as an outside 'lecturer,' not a regular tenure-track faculty member. In short, let’s put aside that candidate Obama’s credentials as legal scholar, legal practitioner, and law teacher are as virtually non-existent as his other credentials, especially those from his time in the Illinois and United States Senates." If he even TRIED to be more specific he'd destroy any vestige of his credibility. (Atlasphere)

Censorship in Los Angeles

The "Los Angeles Times" has forbidden its bloggers to even MENTION the problems "Mr. Haircut," John Edwards is having about a supposed "affair" between him and a blonde. They call it "salacious rumors." (Unfortunately for "Mr. Haircut," it's true. He admitted it.) Seems to me they're a little selective about which "salacious rumors" they'll publish. I seem to remember a few about conservatives they published right away. Like the one about a Republican congressman who was arrested on the word of ONE cop who "interpreted something he did as "asking for gay sex." Meanwhile. Not much was made of the story about a Democrat whose gay boyfriend got caught running a gay whorehouse out of his apartment. Selective? You bet! (News Busters)

This is So Common

Building something "out in the weeds"and then having people build up around you, then getting complaints about what you're doing. It happened to three racetracks in the Denver area that I know of. One is now a private warehouse facility; the other now has a tree growing out of its grandstand. The third (which STILL has no near neighbors) is just closed, and destroyed. Its nearest neighbor is Denver International Airport, which was also "out in the weeds" when it was built (as was its predecessor, Stapleton Airport, now closed). People built up around them and started whining about "noise." DIA (Denver International Airport) has paid millions of dollars to the City of Aurora for "anti-noise violations" and will probably one day succumb to the whining of those neighbors, as did the others. I wondered why they allowed Denver to "annex" so much of their property for DIA. I think people who build next to an airport or a race track, or something else where something happens they don't like ought to be forever STOPPED from complaining. The same is true of this Utah farmer who built a "Redneck Stonehedge" out of derelict cars, just to show his neighbors he could do what he wanted on his own property. (Fox News)

"Having Your Cake and Eating It, Too"

That describes the liberals (socialists) nicely. They clamor about a "soup-kitchen-economy" while at the same time talking about "fat kids" and how tro keep them from becoming fat. I look at pictures on the TV about the "plight" of all the "poor people" out there in places like New Orleans (a liberal-run city) and I notice: most of them are fat. You can't have it both ways. Either we have a "fat problem" in this country or we're "poor." But the liberals aren't smart enough to figure that out; or they don't think YOU'RE smart enough. I wonder which it is. this is not the only thing on which they promote BOTH SIDES of an issue while thinking you can't see it. (Common Sense)

Why Doesn't He Become a Republican?

Joe Lieberman ran on the Democrat ticket in the last election and has been an "independent" ever since. This news item is about his non-attendance at Democrat lunches. Why SHOULD he attend their policy lunches? After losing the vice-president spot as a Democrat, the Democrats "excommunicated" him. So he ran for re-election to his old Senate seat as an independent, and WON. They couldn't beat him then and they can't beat him now. Why he doesn't just become a Republican, I don't know. We could use one more vote in Congress. But for some reason, he refuses. Maybe one day we'll find out why. (Yahoo News)

Palin Scares the Hell Out of Obama

Obama and his accomplices are so terribly frightened of Sarah Palin, they've forgotten all about John McCain in their haste to destroy her so she can't "bring down their house of cards." They thought it was "in the bag." That there was no way McCain could win over their silver-tongued, "black," YOUNG candidate--until Sarah burst on the scene the night of Obama's "big speech" and "took the wind out of his sails." for all time. Obama just barely got a "bump" out of his big speech at his convention when word of her selection made the news. Since then, you can't hardly find Obama's name in the news. It has him so frightened that, while he and Biden tell his people to "stay away from her family," everybody in his camp are vomiting all over her with everything they can think of. They're coming up with new lies every day. So thinly disguised it takes only a few moments to prove the lie. They take things from the "kook left-wing blogosphere," and without any kind of fact-checking, "run with it." This kind of thing will mean their ruin, and I'm all for it. (Yahoo News)

Franken Easily wins Primary

I see the Democrats are as stupid as usual. He won easily in a field of seven, probably because he is better-known than any of his competitors, and Democrats are well-known to vote for celebrities, no matter how ill-prepared they are to "govern." They re-elected Bill Clinton after the many sex scandals and lies to Congress, didn't they? They STILL say Clinton was one of our best presidents! I'd like to see their list of reasons WHY they think he was that good (other than his lies about "balancing the budget). Maybe because he moved us ever closer to socialism, which is one of their main goals. I don't know why they don't just change their name to the Socialist Party. Oh! I know! They know they couldn't win that way! Franken SAYS he "put his career as a talk show host "on hold" to "dabble" in politics. What a load! He had to quit his job on "Air America" because they couldn't afford to PAY him! And they couldn't afford to pay him because nobody was interested in the drivel he spouted. If, somehow, he won this election against a "seasoned veteran," his state is in for a bad time. The very fact that he has enough Democrat support to have spent millions, and is able to spend millions more to get this (for him) low-paying job tells me a lot about the intelligence of the Democrats. But then they did that when they supported Bill Clinton and now Obama. Clinton was a "dedicated horn-dog" more interested in sex than anything else and still is. Obama is a socialist and Franken is just stupid. (Yahoo News)

Domestic Drilling Won't Help for 10 Years!

That's the Democrat mantra. But they're wrong, as they are in most things. Just the SUGGESTION that we were going to be able to drill domestically contained in the president's opening of domestic drilling by rescinding the presidential ban (even though the Congress ban still exists) caused oil prices to drop like a stone, and at this writing, they're STILL dropping. I wonder what will INSTANTLY happen to oil prices if Congress likewise removes ITS ban on most domestic oil drilling. Even announcing we are going to drill in ANWR will cause oil prices to drop even faster. And when we DO start domestic drilling, I say we should not sell a single drop outside the United States. You don't walk three blocks to a grocery store to buy bread when you have a cabinetful of it at home. Use what WE have. Let the Saudis and other Middle-East oil barons sell their oil to those who USED to buy from us at a greatly reduced price. (Just common sense)

Is the "Drug War" Working?

No. The number of people abusing drugs today after YEARS of "the drug war" that has allowed the passage of laws that reduce freedom for EVERYONE are passed, "to fight the drug war." Meanwhile, everything they do accomplishes NOTHING. I've felt the need to say SOMETHING about this for a long time. The "drug war" people will say they NEED to keep fighting the "drug war" or drugs would "overrun us." I ask you? What are drugs doing now, in spite of all their activity? Somebody once defined insanity as "doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result." Doesn't that describe those engaged in the "drug war?" They are doing what they are doing while further limiting our freedoms in the NAME of the "drug war." I think the "drug war" is merely a device politicians and bureaucrats USE to be able to "tighten the noose" on the rest of us. How would it be different if we made laws to allow addicts to get their drugs in a drug store at reasonable prices? (Which would eliminate the "robber baron prices" dealers charge) How would THAT make it worse than it is, now? Then keep up the pressure on those who sell drugs ILLEGALLY? The cops say they NEED to go after the addicts (the VICTIMS of the drug culture) to get them to "turn over" and name their dealers, then for the dealers to "turn over" and name their suppliers, etc. Not so. This is just "the easy way (and it's not working)." There are many other ways to get to the drug pushers and their suppliers if they would get off their lazy butts and DO it. Harassing the VICTIMS of the "drug culture" and putting them in prison for long terms for HURTING ONLY THEMSELVES will only make the "prison population" problem much worse. I say this as the father of TWO children who are dead because THEY were victims of the drug culture. So don't give me a lot of crap about how "I don't know what it's like." Stopping the harassment of the VICTIMS will give the cops a lot more time and money to go after the REAL "villains" in this piece. Those who are making BILLIONS off other people's misery. If they legalize the USE of drugs and make drugs less expensive, there won't be as much PROFIT in selling them and thus, many drug dealers would be looking around for other crimes in which to engage. The "drug cops" will say I'm just saying this so I can get drugs easier. I've got news for them. I've NEVER used drugs and never will. I'm one of the few people remaining who doesn't even know what pot TASTES like. I DO know what it SMELLS like, (After 18 years of scraping drug scene VICTIMS off the streets as a paramedic). they paint EVERYBODY who objects to their insane drug war the same: "we wouldn't object if we didn't "have a dog in this fight." In other words, the only reason (in their minds) to object to their insane drug war is if we wanted to make it easier to get drugs ourselves. That's STUPID! As long as they "fight drugs" the same was as now, the worse the "problem" will get, until it DOES "overwhelm" us and drug use becomes "the norm." (Drug Policy Alliance Network)

What A Difference A Republican Governor Makes

That's Ann Coulter's conclusion. Liberals WANTED another "Katrina" so they could again "blame it on Bush," as they do EVERYTHING except the GOOD things, like the fact that we haven't had an Islamic terrorist attack in this country for SEVEN YEARS (So I used the word "Islamic." So sue me!). But you'd never realize it if you listen to the liberal media. Liberal "shockumentary" maker Michael Moore says the hurricane that was approaching New Orleans during the GOP Convention is "proof there is a God," which is about as stupid a statement as most liberals make. But a Republican governor in Louisiana helped minimize the damage. I'd even bet he told Democrat Mayor Ray Nagin to "be sure and get those school buses out of harm's way so they can be used, this time." I don't think Nagin is smart enough to have done it on his own, without instructions from someone smarter than he is (So I called a stupid black man "stupid." So sue me.). "As many have pointed out, the reason elected officials tend to neglect infrastructure project issues, like reinforcing levees in New Orleans and bridges in Minneapolis, is that there's no glory when a bridge doesn't collapse. There are no round-the-clock news specials when the levees hold. You can't even name an overpass retrofitting project after yourself -- it just looks too silly. But everyone's taxes go up to pay for the reinforcements. Preventing another terrorist attack is like that. There is no media coverage when another 9/11 doesn't happen. We can thank God that President George Bush didn't care about doing the safe thing for himself; he cared about keeping Americans safe. And he has, for seven years." And is he getting any credit for that? Not from the liberal media! (Ann Coulter)

Chuck Norris on Gov. Palin

Yes, I know; he's "just an actor" and I've said many times that being an actor and thus famous is NOT a qualification to be a political pundit. But Chuck has many times proven that he IS a lot smarter politically than all thosae "Hollywood type" celebrities who think their celebrity makes them qualified to speak on politics. When Chuck Norris speaks, I listen. I don't agree with EVERYTHING he says (as I don't agree with everything said by anybody), but in this, he is very right. He details why he likes Gov. Palin and, if not for her choice of a VP nominee, he would be "going third party." Which would have "wasted" his vote. Desperation is the only reason I can see for him to do that. I've even toyes with it, but I haven't found any third party I thought could win. And I don't want to "throw away" my vote. Chuck says, "All joking aside, one real fact about Gov. Palin is that both Sens. Barack Obama and Joe Biden are shaking in their boots [They wet their pants at the sound of her name. -RT] over her candidacy and prospective appointment to the vice presidency. Obama talks about change, but McCain further lived out his commitment to reform with his choice of Palin to be his running mate. Obama chose government-as-usual Sen. Biden. McCain chose Washington outsider and corruption confronter Gov. Palin." I agree that Sarah Palin has "reenergized" the Republican Party, which was showing signs of going the way of the Whig Party after Lincoln was elected. She may be the reason McCain is actually ELECTED, and may even be the next president after him, either by his death in office (which is very possible) or by being elected as many VPs do after "their president" has his "time at bat." I don't wish anything bad for McCain, but I'd feel a lot better if Sarah was "standing behind the president" than Joe Biden, who is simply another political hack. Another thing: I think Sarah can help "keep McCain 'in line' " if she's "standing at his shoulder. She'd see to it there was not another (unconstitutional) "McCain-Feingold" law passed. (Chuck Norris)

How Abysmally Stupid!

I just heard a man on the radio talking about the election and he was whining about "REAL war hero" (John Kerry) being dissed in the last election while a "hero pretender" was being praised in this one. There's only one problem here. The man he called "a REAL war hero" wasn't anything of the kind. He spens a few months over there. living in "special quarters" and putting in for purple hearts every time he got a hangnail or cut himself shaving. Then when he came home, he (wrongly) accused those left over there of murder, throwing (someone else's medals) over the White House fence, claiming they were his. McCain, meanwhile, spent a LONG TIME over there, including FIVE YEARS as a prisoner of war, being tortured. Then when he went into politics, he stayed there for a long time, too, doing his best to make things better for us (even if he DID sponsor McCain-Feingold). At least he is not an avid socialist, as is John Kerry AND Barack Obama. It pains me, and I wanted to vomit when I heard this abysmally ignorant man "dissing" John McCain and "deifying" John Kerry. I hate it that there are so many people in this country who are just as ignorant as he is; which is why this country elects and RE-elects such ignorant stooges and liars as Bill ("oral sex is not sex") Clinton and Barack (socialism is great) Obama. If people would just PAY ATTENTION to politics longer than just a few months before an election when the lies are flying, maybe they'd be better able to see through such people. (Just common sense)

Is That All They Have?

They’re criticizing Sarah Padin because her speech was written and she used a teleprompter (One that didn’t work. Did anybody notice?). Show me a politician who DOESN’T have speechwriters and use a teleprompter! I’m sure if she didn’t agree with what was in her speech, she wouldn’t have given it. Obama is well known to be an abysmally LOUSY speaker when he’s forced to do it without a prepared speech and a teleprompter. So where does HE get off criticizing Sarah for using one? If that’s all they’ve got besides the “sea of lies” Democrats are putting out about her, he’s in “big trouble.” And he’s frightened for his political life! (Just common sense)

This is Terrible!

Sarah Palin charged the state 80% LESS than did her predecessor. Yes, she DID charge “per diem” sometimes when at home, but specifically removed “lodging” from the bill (There are other things covered in “per diem”). Also, she mostly did not charge for her children, and some bills specifically left out food while on the road! This is bad, according to the Washington Post. Again, ANY politician who can REDUCE expenses by 80% is MY KIND of politician! (Red State)

Why Did Republicans Lose?

We were all excited about what was going to happen when the Republicans “took over” the Congress in 2004, but it didn’t happen. Republicans, instead of “changing Washington,” let Washington change THEM! They decided that being invited to the best parties and pleasing the liberals was more important than stopping “pork barrel” spending, and the result was predictable: they lost the majority and now Democrats will do everything they can to make government bigger (all the time couching it in such terms as to fool the public and make them think that they’re doing something good) while moving us closer and closer to socialism. That’s their mission, and nothing we can do, short of removing them (and their unelected cohorts in the bureaucracy and academia) from office and hope upcoming Republicans have learned from what happened before. (Common Sense)

Why Strike Now?

Don't unions realize that the more they take from the businesses that are struggling now, the more likely there soon won't be any business there to employ their members? They priced themselves out of the Steel market, and it disappeared as a U. S. industry, leaving many, many union employees without jobs. Now they're trying their best to do the same in the airplane-building industry. They talk about labor being "outsourced" as a "Gripe." But it's actually a SYMPTOM of the REAL problem, which is wages and other costly things companies must provide being "too much." so they outsource so they can afford to stay in business. Boeing says they're losing $100 MILLION dollars a DAY because of this strike (the second strike in TWO contract negotiations). They don't realize that maybe, just maybe, if they made it a little easier on Boeing, they might not outsource. If the wages and other costs involved in employing these unionized employees were not WAY too high, they wouldn't NEED to outsource. (Yahoo News)

Into the Lion's Mouth

Asif Ali Zardari, the widower of slain Pakistan President Benezir Bhutto, was elected president in a landslide. I guess he likes "living dangerously." If my wife and her father both had been assassinated, why would I want to put myself in the position to be killed, too? I guess even the thought of being killed doesn't stop politicians from seeking office--unless your name is Teddy Kennedy. Frankly, I don't think it's worth it. (Yahoo News)

Criminal Charges Against Bush

That's what Obama/Biden hope they can "conjure up" if they win the White House. Imagine what would have happened if Bush had not put out a "hands-off Bill" message when he got elected. Trust the Democrats (socialists) not to be as nice. If "Obama & Co." get elected, they'll spend a LOT of YOUR money trying to "get" Bush and some of his people for imagined "crimes." Forgetting that the list of "crimes" that can be committed by a president is very short. He can do an "executive order" to make almost ANYTHING legal, for him and any other government employee he wishes. But don't tell Obama that. He has "high hopes" of "getting" Bush. (Boortz)

Democrats Spreading Lies (As Usual)

"Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin on Thursday blamed supporters of the Democratic presidential ticket for spreading "misinformation and flat-out lies" about her and her family." That's what Sarah Palin is saying. What did she expect? We're talking about DEMOCRATS, here. If they don't "spread lies" about you, that means they're not worried about you. The mere fact they're "spreading lies" about you means you have "scared the hell" out of them. I'd just go on and tell the truth about everything, and their lies won't make any difference. This is how presidential politics works. As long as the Republican candidate doesn't scare them, they usually let him alone, to some extent. But if they "go crazy" with lies and innuendo on a BIG basis, they're frightened--and in your case, they have good reason to be frightened. (News Max)

Run Them Out of Money

I guess if you can't win any other way, just bankrupt them. The ACLU has lost almost every time they've come up against the Boy Scouts in court, but they keep suing them anyway. It's so obvious that their goal is to "wear them down" and "run them broke," that any fool can see it. Maybe some of the fools that contribute money to ACLU so they can keep "beating" on the Boy Scouts will stop giving them money. this is how big organizations who have an unlimited money supply win against smaller, less well-financed organizations, even when they're patently wrong. They should be STOPPED from repeated frivolous lawsuits designed to "wear down" their smaller opponent which has a habit of winning every lawsuit. (Traditional Values Coalition)

Liberal (Socialist) Hatred

I've noticed one thing that is habitual: whenever ANYBODY promotes an idea that will HELP America, they become subject to liberal HATRED. They hate the war in Iraq; even though this war was NECESSARY to keep the Islamic terrorists occupied while we "killed them off," so they couldn't come here and do their stupid, vivious deeds in American cities, rather than in Iraq or Afghanistan. Bush lowered taxes, and they HATED it. He banned the country's government paying for stem-cell research and they LIKED it. Anything they HATE, I must LOVE, because I know that if they hate it, it must be "good for America." (Of course, this is not my ONLY motivation. I think for myself, too.) This is a "constant," because EVERY time something "good for America" happens, the liberals (socialists) hate it. Alaska Governor Sarah Palin IS "good for America," and I want her "waiting in the wings" in case McCain (who is only one year younger than I am) dies in office. I KNOW my "time is short." I accept it, and wouldn't SERIOUSLY run for high office unless I had someone like Sarah ready to take my place. She's a lot smarter than ANYBODY (with the possible exception of McCain and his troops) knows. I just know she is poised, good-looking, has the legs to wear a skirt (not like some I've seen lately), and is NOT a "Washington politician." She knows how to "take on" those Washington politicians, and win. Watch for a BIG "shakeup" in Washington when they get there. If they don't win, look for this country to "go socialist" in the next 4 to 8 years. (Just common sense)

"Addicted" to Foreign Oil? Nope!

I'm getting really tired of people who should know better talking about "our addiction to foreign oil." Oil is an absolute NECESSITY, as is water and air. Are YOU "addicted to air or water? I don't think so, but you need both to survive until something better comes along. The same is true of oil. And people are trying mightily, and so far without result, to come up with "something better." They talk about "wind power," and "natural gas," and electric cars (which need coal or oil to produce electricity with which to charge), and even nuclear power. So far, only nuclear power shows any promise when it comes to replacing ANY amount of oil. Everything else does a little, but not nearly enough. So we have to continue using oil until something better (or even as good) comes along to replace it. Even President Bush talks about "our addiction to foreign oil." But the Congress still flat REFUSES to do ANYTHING to facilitate domestic drilling; the one thing that can alleviate our dependence on foreign oil. Liberals (such as has-been comedian and former liberal talk show host (on the slowly disappearing "Air America"), and now pursuing a doomed run for Congress (to join his friends there in obstructing domestic drilling), wants to "Tax somebody. They won't notice it." This is the typical liberal (socialist) response to ANYTHING. “Since Al Franken's Democrat colleagues have been in the majority, the cost of a gallon of gas in Minnesota has nearly doubled,” added Sheehan. “Given the Democrat's track record, Minnesotans have every reason to be skeptical of Al Franken's commitment to lower fuel prices.” This, from Al Franken't opponent in the election. (Norm Coleman)

Sarah "Scares the aHell" Out of Democrats

Because she's REAL. she has "energized" the Republican Party like no one else has ever been able to do since Reagan. She doesn’t screech at them as Hillary does. She merely “talks” and makes her point, scraping them off the field with ease. On Obama, she simply said, “Obama gives a good speech, but speechmaking doesn’t solve problems. McCain DOES things. He has a HISTORY of DOING things, and the liberals (socialists) HATE what he does. He withstood five years of horror and came out the other end a better man. He doesn’t care either if liberals like what he does. Let ‘em cry,” he says, as he “goes his own way.” Sarah Palin is a “female John McCain” who would also “come out the other end a better person” if she were to be subjected to the things to which McCain was subjected. Like always, I don’t agree with EVERYTHING (McCain-Feingold) McCain has done, and I have my problems with Bush, too (Not pardoning the Border Patrol agents falsely imprisoned for doing their jobs, and his stance on stem-cell research). But McCain and Sarah are the best thing we have. If Obama gets into the Oval Office, he will quickly destroy this country as we know it. And that’s not ”political rhetoric.” It’s truth. (Just common sense)

Terrorists Use U-Tube to Teach Children to Hate America

The video they show is of children discussing their dreams. But they don't want to be doctors, firemen or police. They want to "become martyrs to the Islamic cause." That means they want to DIE for Islam. And this is being taught on an AMERICAN web site, in an effort to recruit OUR children! They'd never buy it, you say? Some have, and more will. Even in a land of plenty, there is ignorance, and they play on that ignorance to get recruits. You Tube has hosted far too many such sites. They need to be more capable of "weeding out" propaganda from our enemies. Additionally, they use these sites to send coded messages to "terrorists in place" for the attacks they're expected to conduct. Hitler and Stalin never had it so good. (News Busters)

End Dependence on Foreign Oil?

The liberals make a lot of noise about "ending our dependence on foreign oil" while constantly FACILITATING it by doing everything they can to make drilling for oil in America impossible. Further, there has not been an oil refinery built in this country for more than THIRTY YEARS because environmentalists won't let us. Even if we were able to drill here, we couldn't refine what we drilled! The refineries we HAVE are old and falling apart, and are based on 30-year-old technology. Some are "held together with baling wire and toothpaste." What happens when they fail and kill people? The liberals whine about how dangerous they are, completely ignoring the fact that THEIR policies, forced upon the country, made them that way, while ENSURING our dependence on foreign oil. (Just common sense)

"Right on the Head," As Usual

Mallard Fillmore's latest strip hits it right on the head when he "translates" "teacher-speak" into English. Bruce Tinsley, the cartoonist, has a unique ability to "cut right to the chase" and "tell it like it is," in one cartoon strip after another. The liberals hate him, and that's as it should be, because he shows them for what they are on a regular basis. They SAY this strip is not funny, and I'm not surprised. They have NO sense of humor, especially when THEIR ox is gored. I think this strip is amazingly funny, in ways liberals just can't grasp. (Mallard Fillmore)

Is That All They Have?

Envy of his riches? No comments on his ability to govern? How about his age? Any questions about his choice of VP candidate? Anything else besides "rich envy?" In that case, I'd say McCain is going to have an easy time of it unless they get enough votes from people who think McCain is just "too rich" to remember how many homes he owns. In that case, we're ALL in BIG TROUBLE, because that's no reason to elect a president. How rich is Obama? How about his big-time Democrat "behind-the-scenes-friends?" Most (if not all) liberal Democrats are rich and I doubt if any of them can remember how many homes they own. But they, unlike McCain, did not EARN the money that bought those homes. They were LEFT the money by their ancestors. But they don't want you to know that. It's a classic case of "the pot calling the kettle black." Now they'll call me a racist because I used the term, "black." That's what they do; that's how they operate. When you say something that "calls them out," they don't answer your charges; they simply start calling you names so you'll spend your time defending against those names rather than demand an answer. (Common Sense)

Self-Destruction

Singer Amy Winehouse may be brain damaged, due to SEVERAL overdoses at the same time. She may die this time, and she apparently didn't learn from the times before. She may die this time, or be a "vegetable" the rest of her life. I can't understand why people who have "made it" sometimes "self-destruct" with drugs or alcohol. Do they think they "don't deserve it?" Do they think their success came too easily after liberals keep harping on the idea that ANY "rich people" got rich by taking something from people who aren't rich (the "zero-sum" game)? I don't know the answer, and anything I might say is a guess. Why did the actor who played the Joker in a wildly successful movie (his first major starring role) die of an overdose, even before the movie came out? It's a mystery to me. Can anybody tell me the answer? (Fox News)

Viagra Good for More Than an Erection

"Natalie Archibald, from Musselburgh, near Edinburgh, was diagnosed with primary pulmonary hypertension after she collapsed on Christmas Day two years ago, the U.K.’s Daily Telegraph reports. Primary pulmonary hypertension causes abnormally high blood pressure in the arteries of the lungs. As a result, the small arteries of the lungs become narrow, which makes it hard for blood to flow, according to the National Institutes of Health. The Viagra works by opening the arteries and improving the blood flow." So I guess Viagra is good for many things related to high blood pressure. Good news for seniors who have high blood pressure. If their doctor prescribes Viagra for their blood pressure, it may solve another problem they may have. (Fox News)

Bullies

That's what they are at "Accountable America." They find out personal information on candidate's contributors and threaten them with smears and legal harassment if they don't stop contributing to conservative candidates. Of course, THEIR contributors' names are "confidential." Tom Matzzie, a left-wing political activist, and the boss of this group, brags that he is "going for the jugular." WHOSE jugular? For what? They attacked one donor to Tom Delay, intimating that because he was INDICTED, that was wrong. Funny; I heard people were not guilty until they were convicted in this country. And Delay hasn't been convicted of ANYTHING. Only "indicted" by a left-wing prosecutor who is well known for "indicting" his enemies, but who actually convicts few, because most of them are not guilty of ANYTHING except being conservative. This guy needs to have the same tactics he uses, used on him. (Common Sense)

Nice to Be A Democrat Politician

Detroit Mayor Kwame Fitzpatrick has been offered a deal (though prosecutors have denied it) to keep him out of jail. He is to plead guilty to two felonies and give up his law license and not run for office for two years, while doing 300 hours of "community service." Do you think he would have been offered such a "deal" if he wasn't a Democrat politician? If he was "just one of us?" Doubtful. And to agree "not to run for office for two years?" How silly is that? He's facing "removal proceedings," but who knows if they will be successful. In any case, a felon should be forever barred from political office, even if his constituents are stupid enough to vote him in. This has all the earmarks of the Washington, DC situation, where the mayor was CONVICTED in a drug scandal, but who came back and ran for office there again, and WON. (Yahoo News)

Sorry Folks

We're having technical difficulties. We're trying to solve the problem.

What Ignorance At CNN!

CNN's Christine Romans thinks Bill Clinton was "too conservative! What ignorance that displays on the part of someone who SHOULD be "paying attention but who obviously was not (except when her professors in college taught her to be a good socialist). The idea that Bill Clinton was "too conservative" is ludicrous. He's about as liberal as they come, and so is his wife. How do people GET so ignorant while still being able to land well-paying jobs? Sheesh! (Lynsi Thomas)

Dog and Pony Show

I'm getting very tired of the "dog and pony show" going on (today at Mile High Stadium/Invesco Field) in Denver this week. It's impossible to avoid it because the so-called "news sources" ALL are "wall-to-wall" with it. It's as if there is NO other news in the world. There is no way to avoid it short of just hitting the off button" on your television or radio. The worst part of it is there's no respite after the DNC gets finished because then they go directly to Minnesota for the REPUBLICAN National Convention where similar expensive, but unimportant things will go on all NEXT week. Just before that was the Olympics, also "wall-to-wall." What amazes me is that they think all this "sound and fury signifying nothing" is important. It's not. They've already picked their nominee (Hillary fizzled) for both spots, on both sides, so why do they need to spend all this money? Because they can; it's their biggest party in four years and they both mean to make the most of it.

I just hope all the politicians survive all the drinking and partying at our expense. It's also a podium from which the Democrats (and their accomplices) can say "good things" about their lame candidates and be taken seriously, just as if what they were saying was important. And there is going to be "more of the same" all next week, and the "sound and fury" will continue right up to the election. The only problem with this so-called "free society" of ours is the election process, which has not stopped since the LAST election in 2006. People wonder why I'm not right in the middle of it, since this blog is all about politics. The answer is, these "shows" are NOT politics. They're a "show" for "the masses," to convince us they're important. What IS important is what these politicians DO after they get elected, and THAT'S what I cover, bringing you news and info the liberal press means to keep from you. (Just common sense)

Insight Into the Liberal Press

I'm almost afraid to look at the "Mallard Fillmore" strip. He's not only right so often, he's more insightful than anybody else I know of and that makes a lot more work for me as I need to feature his wisdom and insight. In this one he illustrated graphically how the press is treating this election. The last time I said "Mallard" is right just about all the time I got a comment from a reader simply saying "You are wrong." So I asked him/her (an anonymous comment) to be more specific, and the silence from his/her direction is "golden." I guess he/she can't come up with any specifics. But I'm still wrong, right? (Mallard Fillmore)

Cocksure, But Ignorant and Arrogant

Obama has shown that he just has NO understanding of how the world works when he promised to "get us off the fossil oil standard within ten years." He made it worse when he cockily claimed he could "get one million 150 MPG cars on the road by 2015." (If it was so easy to do, why hasn't it already been done? He presumes to know how much of the profit EARNED by the oil companies is "excess profit" (who gets to DICTATE how much profit is "excess profit?"). And what makes him think he will have the power to TAKE that "excess profit" to spend elsewhere? I'm sure the oil companies would LOVE to spend that "excess profit" the environmental extremists (Democrats all) won't let them spend on exploration to do so. But they're forced to keep it in their bank accounts instead of looking for new sources of oil within the United States. (Café Hayek)

Success Envy

That's what I see when Democrats attack McCain for not knowing how many houses he (or his wife) own(s). Not a peep out of them if a Democrat DEFAULTS on a loan gained from "political friends" and their influence. Paul Jacob (Common Sense) says, " Hmmm. Silence when politicians use their positions for material gain? Attacks when McCain pays his own way!" Wonder how many huts Obama's half-brother (who lives on a dollar a day) owns. Actually, who cares? (Common Sense)

Hybrids Only

Reserved For a Prius

I'm getting tired of liberals in Congress giving special privileges to those "dumbos" who "buy their crap." The latest is the "special parking" for drivers of those now ubiquitous "hybrids" (that cost so much money it would take YEARS to pay for in saved gas, if any) Even cab companies are buying them and there are drivers "lined up around the block" to drive them because they, too, have "bought the bullcrap" that they get better gas mileage) and the cab companies think they can get more business by "being green." They'll ultimately find out that they won't (both of them) and then the liberals in government will "rescue them" by giving them a "green subsidy." Debbie Schussel asks, "What's next--special parking spots for illegal aliens, the non-English speaking, Muslims, vegan lesbian yoga teachers who were artificially inseminated?" (Debbie Schussel)

Why Ed Koch (a Democrat) Supports Bush

It's one of the main reasons why I don't "write him off," too, even though he has done (or not done) some things that make me shake with anger (Such as allowing one of his personal friends to imprison two Border Patrol agents for more than ten years for doing their jobs, and not pardoning them). When asked, Koch said, "Bush surprised and impressed me with his resolve after September 11 to go after the terrorists and the countries that harbor them. He had the grit to topple the Taliban [in Afghanistan -RT], drive Saddam Hussein from power and press on in what is going to continue to be a grinding conflict." I like the fact that he has the courage of his convictions. Yes, mistakes were made by his subordinates and are in the process of being corrected. Another reason is there is NO ONE on the Democrat side that I'd trust with the presidency. Especially not Obama; OR Hillary; OR Kerry. All for much the same reasons: they're socialists and promote socialist programs. (Just common sense) Something most liberals and Democrats don't have. If they did have, they wouldn't be liberal Democrats.

Female Islamic Terrorists?

Now that's hard to believe, considering the way Islamics treat their women, but it's true. Seems to me, their women would be HAPPY to be out from under their yoke. And you can't blame it on ignorance, either. The latest one has several PHDs and is a scientist, in her own right. How could SHE be so stupid as to do the work of the Islamic terrorists? Maybe that's her way to get out from under their thumb. (No, not the one this story is about) (Israel Insider)

Teaching Terrorism

Did you know that almost 1,000 AMERICAN children are currently being "educated" (translated: "conditioned") abroad in fundamentalist Islamic schools known as "madrassas?" What sane American would allow their children to be abused in this way? About the only "learning" going on there is the MEMORIZING of the Koran, and if any of the kids "gets out of line," he is beaten for his trouble. They sleep on thin mats on the floor and start their 12 hour a day sessions at dawn. These kids will no doubt return home with implacable, radical, extremist Islamic views while "blending seamlessly into society." The pictures of these kids in News Max, taken while they were "studying," show two kinds of expressions: profound boredom, or "teeth-gritting" anger. People who allow their children to be subjected to this are the ones the "child protectors" ought to be "looking into." Not the innocent parents who have been "reported" by people who are suing them for other things, to get their attention off the suit, knowing they can't be punished, even for false reports. It normally takes about seven years to memorize the Koran, and they will come home completely conditioned to think like Muslim extremists; they're "walking time-bombs" who will probably go off in future years. Read the article, "Teaching Terrorism," in the September 2008 issue of News Max Magazine. It's available on most major newsstands, or you can subscribe (or ask for a specific issue if it is still in stock) by going to (NewsMax.com)

Avoiding Being Specific

This is how Obama and his henchmen keep America from knowing his REAL convictions, which are pure socialism. Every time someone asks about specifics, we get generalities, and if we persist, they call us names. We'll never find out his specific ideas until (if) he gets elected and begins making "changes" that are not to our liking, but are very much to HIS. This is how it will be for at least the next 4 years if he gets elected. Eight years if people don't "wake up" to his socialism after he and his accomplices take over all their decisions, money, and life. I really hate watching as Americans prepare to APPROVE people (liberals) stealing all they own. (Mallard Fillmore)

Twisting Facts

I've finally found out what Doonesbury is good for, if anything. It's showing you graphically how to "twist the numbers" and "knock" Fox in the bargain. Fox News has always, since it was started, been the liberals' favorite "evidence" of media bas "in favor of the right. Never mind that ABC, CBS, NBC, Washington Post, New York Times, LA Times, and ALL other news outlets are plainly biased toward the left (with 90% of their newsmen ADMITTING they vote Democrat). This ONE outlet, which they call "biased" because it tells BOTH SIDES of the story instead of just the liberal side, represents "media bias to the right" for them. This strip by Doonesbury shows how the left "creates big figures" for something they IMAGINE, but can't prove. Showing a Fox reporter saying he'll report "both numbers" and let the viewers decide is really stupid, because it makes MY point. Why do I say this? Because it wasn't necessary to IDENTIFY Fox News to make THEIR imaginary point. (Doonesbury)

Intimidating the French

The Taliban is trying to intimidate the French by targeting them in heavy attacks. But it's not working. The French, under Sarkozy, have "found their backbone" and they killed 13 of the Taliban attackers in a day-long battle. The Taliban managed to kill 10 of the French in the first moments of the surprise attack, by blowing themselves, AND some French soldiers up in "suicide bomb" attacks. But they were largely unable to kill many more in the day-long battle that followed, which shows their incompetence in actual fighting. (Yahoo News)

To Destroy the Republican Party

The liberal media is urging John McCain to pick a "pro-choice" (pro-baby killing) candidate for his vice-president. To do so would literally DESTROY the Republican Party because it would drive the Republican "base" to "stay home," or worse, vote Democrat (Which is just what Democrats want). If he does it, I fear for the future of this country because it would result I the election of Obama, a proven SOCIALIST, who would end up taking all you own by instituting a socialist (collectivist) system in this country. Don't believe it? Just listen to his every word; words that tell you how much he's going to DO for you (with other people's money). That is socialism, pure and simple. If you don't understand what socialism is, and why it's bad for you and the rest of the country, PLEASE do some research and see it that's what you REALLY want. (Just common sense)

Dems to Destroy Our Economy

And thus the country, cause the price of oil, a substance on which this country runs, to rise until it's too expensive for the average person to buy. Then the price of EVERYTHING will also go up because transportation companies will have to also raise their rates precipitously and EVERYTHING you buy MUST be shipped. At the same time, they promote the use of corn, which is almost as ubiquitous as oil, as a fuel source, forcing the price of CORN and everything that depends upon it up and causing a shortage of corn. It's a "domino effect," which will, if it is allowed to continue, destroy our economy and make socialism (collectivism) look good; and that's what Democrats want, something that makes their failed system (which has failed in time, everywhere it has been tried), look good. They refuse to allow us to build ANYTHING (except Ethanol refineries) without having to wait for endless "environmental studies" that raise the cost of ANY project while delaying it unconscionable amount of time. Everything the liberals (Democrats) do is bad for the economy and they "sell it to you" as the "bread and circuses" they intend to provide, with someone else's money (not theirs). We need to wake up to their scam and vote the ones now in office, out; while keeping new ones OUT of office at all costs. (Tri-City Forum)

This is the Way They Twist the Law

Use the "abandoned property law" to steal property that is NOT "abandoned, but which is actively under court forfeiture action with owners and their lawyers in court every day to fight the action. This is how the government wins such cases; by "stacking the deck in their own favor. Yes, I know that it's mostly [people ACCUSED of drug dealing who are harmed by this, but aren't they entitled to an "even chance" in court, just as you are? Aren't they "innocent until proven guilty?" The very stated intent of the RICO Laws under which such "forfeitures" are done is unconstitutional (to stop drug dealers, who have a lot of money, from using it to hire the best lawyers they can). That seems to me to be an effort to force drug dealers to suffer under the sometimes inexperience and disinterest of some government-employed lawyers who might be just "going through the motions." That, in itself seems to be "stacking the deck" in the government's favor. I don't like drug dealers any more than anybody else, but they still should have an "even chance" in court until they ARE convicted. (Star-Press)

Muslims Intimidate Publisher

Random House paid $100,000 for "The Jewel of Medina", a detailed story about Muhammad's 9-year-old wife. Muslim sources put pressure on them, and they capitulated, saying they didn't want to "offend" Muslims. Actually, what they didn't want was Muslims killing any of their editors. This is the kind of threatened violence that sometimes intimidates people and is a well-known tactic of the Muslim terrorists to keep people from publishing the truth about them. (Jihad Watch)

"The People Want Change!"

This is an excellent picture of Obama as he is. He will bring "change," even if it kills us. "Change," for change's sake, is not always good. This is a good example. The overall "change" Obama will bring us is from our SUCCESSFUL capitalist system to the universally UNSUCCESSFUL socialist system, with him and his pals in charge. Is this what you want? Do you want the government making ALL your decisions for you, right down to when you can go to the bathroom? Do you want them controlling (or taking) your property (for the good of the nation)?" This is what you'll get if Obama is elected. (Mallard Fillmore)

He's A "Dead Man"

His own father will probably kill him (Just as many do their own daughters who get raped) because the Muslims are so terrified of people who leave their religion, to do so is a "death sentence" their own family must carry out. If they don't, other Muslims will kill ALL of them. Look for it to happen soon. Hamas just can't afford to have the son of one of their top men to convert to ANY other religion because it might incite other conversions. I'd hate to be under such a religion; one that controls my life absolutely and will itself condemn me to death if I leave it. (World Net Daily)

Solzhenitzyn is Dead

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, the author of The Gulag Archipelago, a monumental chronicle of the horrors of the Soviet labor camps, has died at the "tender age" of 89, just as the ideals of Russian freedom is dying under their new premier, former President Vladmir Putin, a former KVD officer who conned his way into the presidency and is now "Premier for Life" while eliminating most (so far) of the new changes made in the wake of the Soviet communist "collapse," moving Russia back into Soviet-style socialism/communism. Bush "bought" his charade, and so did Solhenitzyn, to some degree. It's good that he did not live to see the results of Putin's machinations. (Common Sense)

"Defining" Racism

"DEFINING" RACISM: Mallard Fillmore is right again as he shows how liberals streeetttcch the truth to be able to call ANYBODY with which they disagree racist. This is a method they have been using for eons, but it's getting a little thin. People are getting tired of hearing things they never thought of as being racist being described that way. This is how they do it. Simply DEFINE any action or opinion you don't like as racist and stick to your story. Many gullible people who "don't pay attention" will believe you, and "ostracize" the person accused of racism. In some cases, he can even lose his job, as one university president did for saying women might not have the ability to learn that men do. Now THAT'S a stretch. I don't believe it, but to get a man fired for saying it is a stretch and an irresponsible application of power. (Mallard Fillmore)

It's The Wrong Purpose

Bob Burg says, "In the parking lot of my local Publix grocery store, I saw a pickup truck recently with a bumper sticker that read: 'Gun control means hitting your target.' Ha ha. That’s really funny. Actually, it kind of is funny. And, those of us who agree with the Supreme Court’s recent decision--that gun ownership is an individual right--would probably agree that this is exactly how gun control should be defined. However, it is not a particularly effective bumper sticker if our goal is to persuade gun control advocates to re-think their position." Frankly, I think he is very wrong. You're not going to convince gun-control activists anytime in this century that they're wrong. They KNOW they're wrong, and they don't care. They're determined to disarm America so the "federal agents" they send in the future to take what's ours won't be met with guns when they break in our doors. These people aren't dumb. They realize that a CRIMINAL, who breaks laws for a living, won't obey a law that says he can't be armed. It's not their goal to disarm CRIMINALS, no matter what they say. It is to disarm HONEST people who OBEY laws. If anybody can convince me otherwise with LOGIC, not slogans, I'd be happy to change MY position. (Atlasphere)

A "Nation of Thieves"

That's what any socialist/collectivist nation is, and that's what we are fast becoming. Using government to steal from one another. I recognize that there ARE some people who just can't do for themselves. This is one of the most generous countries in the world in terms of helping each other when we really need it. But I refuse to allow someone else's NEED to become a DEMAND on my earnings. Whenever I drive through areas of town where most welfare recipients live, and see able-bodied men AND women standing on the street corner waiting for their next "fix," I rebel against the "welfare state" America has become. The fact remains that the poorest among us (who would be considered RICH in many countries by their "poor") have one thing by right of citizenship: a vote. And that's what causes liberal politicians and bureaucrats to "kowtow" to them. To GET that vote and stay in power, because that's what welfare is all about: making as many people as possible DEPENDENT upon those politicians so they will give them their vote to keep the "bread and circuses" coming. Now they're even trying to give the vote to illegal immigrants, most of whom are expected to vote democrat. I have said this many times, but nobody seems to care. Saying it does not create the "uproar" it should create. Probably because most people are just not "paying attention," and don't even KNOW what is being done to them--or have "bought" the spin the politicians have put on it and approve. (Walter E. Williams)

Why Are There Still "Poor?"

Economist Professor Walter E. Williams enumerates: " In 2005, total federal, state and local government expenditures on 85 welfare programs were $620 billion. That’s larger than national defense ($495 billion) or public education ($472 billion). The 2005 official poverty count was 37 million persons. That means welfare expenditures per poor person were $16,750, or $67,000 for a poor family of four. Those figures understate poverty expenditures because poor people are recipients of non-welfare programs such as Social Security, Medicare, private charity and uncompensated medical care. The question that naturally arises is if we’re spending enough to lift everyone out of poverty, why is there still poverty?" That's a question neither Democrats, nor Republicans can answer. Democrats, because they've spent TRILLIONS to "fight poverty" with NO results. Republicans because Democrats have blocked their every attempt to alleviate poverty (Walter E. Williams)

"Tabloid Trash" Is True

What former vice-presidential candidate John Edwards described as "tabloid trash" as close as a month ago (at this writing) turned out to be true. He was futzing around with a woman who worked on his campaign way back when he was running in John Kerry's failed campaign. He has now admitted it, and I give him credit for that. But the whole thing shows you just how easily a Democrat candidate can avoid the consequences of his acts by simply lying about it, while the liberal (Democrat) media just laps it up like a dog laps up ice cream. Personally, I think he owes the tabloid newspaper (and the whole tabloid industry) a fervent apology for his insults, repeated over and over, knowing what they were saying was true. Now let's see what the liberal media does about the story about McCAIN'S supposed sexual liaison. Will they "play it up" or will they "play it down?" He's a Republican, so the liberal media will probably play it up. There's no shame there. Unfortunately, McCain being a Republican, denying it will not work as it did with Edwards, whether true or not. Notice how he emphasized that he was "not the father" of the child, knowing the numbers would prove him right, also knowing there was no way of proving he actually DID have sex with her. That's known as "diverting attention." To me, all it proved was that she had sex with others, in addition to him. (Yahoo News)

"Let Them Eat Dog Food!"

That appears to be the opinion of the Sulzbergers, the "royalty" on the New York Times. They're losing money hand over fist, but it hasn't affected the dividends paid to the Sulzberger/Ochs family, who hold voting control even though they only are minority stock owners. They're not even generating enough to pay such dividends without "dipping into the capital," though they recently voted themselves a BIG increase in the size of dividends. If they don't watch out, their stock will degenerate to "junk" status. Meanwhile, employees are being laid off and bought out as they try to cut costs enough to offset reductions in revenue. "Financial pain is for the little people at the New York Times Company, to paraphrase Leona Helmsley." George S. commented: "Fear not, for the federal government is sure to ride to the rescue should they start to go under. Too valuable a propaganda tool to lose in the first place and the housing bailout started a precedent that will haunt taxpayers in the years to come." If that happens, you can bet the Sulzbergers and their pals will be the only ones who profit. (Just common sense)

Obama Lies, Nobody Cares

The book by the "swiftboaters" who served with John Kerry and who knew him best as a dilettante who was trying very hard to get a purple heart without having to RREALLY get hurt literally SANK Kerry's hopes to be president. Democrats STILL use "swiftboating" as a synonym for "lying about us," but they forget that not one thing about that book has ever been proven to be false. I can only hope this book (The Case Against Obama) does the same for ultra-liberal Barack Obama. He "came from nowhere" and rose so swiftly (with the help of his accomplices in the liberal press) that nobody ever asked questions about his past and what he has supported in the past (which were mostly collectivist [socialist] programs). "Why Obama's inexperience and extreme left-wing voting record is more dangerous than any other threat we face today; why the Rev. Wright debacle reveals Obama's poor judgment of character and deceitful nature; why it won't be politics of change with President Obama, it will be liberal politics as usual ("Change" only from Republican "non-socialist" principles)." The only reason he has been able to come this far is because he is the "darling" of the liberal media, who made him into a "rock star." Hopefully, this book will end that "adulation" by people who "pay no attention" to politics until just before an election when the lies and "sales pitches" abound. I think it's about time people realize that while voting is a right, there are RESPONSIBILITIES in voting; the responsibility to know for whom you are voting, and what he/she stands for so you don't vote for someone "because he is pretty." Frankly, I don't think he is so "pretty, either." (Amazon)

I Wondered How Long it Would Take Them

Russia has invaded tiny little Georgia and has killed many people. Looks like Putin and the other KVD'ers running things there are back on the attack on their neighbors. They tried real hard to look like they had changed when "communism failed" there by allowing many "Iron Curtain countries" their "freedom." As Mikhael Gorbachev, the then Soviet Premier told the ruling congress, "it is all a façade to allow the West to go to sleep." Now I guess they don't care if we wake up. Nobody seemed to notice that the SAME people were "in charge" after "the fall of communism" while claiming not to be communists any more. Meanwhile, they were still a SOCIALIST nation. (Communism and socialism are merely two different kinds of COLLECTIVISM where they TAKE from the EARNERS and GIVE to the NON-EARNERS to keep themselves in power. If you don't notice the similarity between this and what is currently happening in the U. S., you're just not paying attention. We're halfway there now, and if we elect somebody like Obama, we'll move much faster in that direction. Remember, the people who supported the Bolsheviks thought they had something really good. They didn't know what communism was, and how it would ruin their lives for 70 years. They found out the hard way. Let's not do that. (Yahoo News)